Jason and I (Aaron) are currently enrolled in a class at Macalester College titled “Schools to Prisons.” This class investigates the phenomenon that has been deemed the schools to prisons pipeline. In other words, the structure and function of many schools is now unintentionally (or perhaps in some cases intentionally) channeling our nation’s most disadvantaged populations straight from public schools into the corrections system.
In editing a recent report from the CCJ, a “School Ethnography,” this analysis is strikingly relevant and poses many difficult questions. The ethnography focuses on two Minneapolis public middle schools, and provides a practical analysis of disciplinary procedures, behavior patterns, school and district policy, and the relationship (or lack thereof) between the schools and the juvenile justice system. The relationship between the schools and the juvenile justice system is where we’d first like to make our intervention. The report shows a lack of communication and understanding amongst important school figures from principals to teachers to behavioral specialists as to the process of referral and entrance into the juvenile justice system. The difficulty that is had in dealing with behavior problems within the school can lead to the juvenile system being used as a crutch… a place to send the “bad apples” and no longer worry about them. A child who otherwise had the whole world in front of them now becomes part of the corrections system, and often it is difficult to get out of that. What we have found in our own research is that this intolerant mode of discipline is not local to Minneapolis, but it is a nationwide problem, from the school system to the prison system.
This is a more systemic, and therefore more difficult, problem for schools to face than is made apparent in the ethnography. Whereas schools are rightly concerned with a lack of resources and working with the tools and structures they have, our class is also looking at the root of the problem as systemic, rooted in a society of institutional racism and a deficient public education system. The ethnography points out several more practical and inexpensive practices that could alleviate behavioral problems within the school, including the disproportionate number of minority children receiving punishments. These include more parent meetings, better understanding of district policy, alternatives to out of class suspension, and “cultural competency” (this term is rather illusive itself) programs.
Take the aspect of parent meetings for example. While it reflects an inexpensive alternative to the problem of high suspension rates, and it is a useful practice, it is not always possible. We would like to take the philosophy behind parent meetings to provide alternatives that do not just come down to a parent being available or not, or a teacher being willing to spend the extra time to involve families. What we mean by the philosophy behind parent meetings is to better integrate the community with the school system, providing students valuable support structures through caring individuals who will help to empower rather than punish. We have found that surrounding a child, or anyone for that matter, with meaningful and healthy relationships is an empowering and supportive experience that is more valuable than a suspension or verbal scolding. One idea that might embody this is to have alternative “punishments” that do not completely remove a child from the learning environment. So for example, instead of being suspended for three days or given after school detentions, perhaps a kid will be put into an after school art class either led by a staff member if resources are available or led by a person or group from the community. The ethnography spends a lot of effort investigating the disproportionate number of youths of color receiving behavior referrals, and in the end it recommends more cultural competency programs. This recommendation however, is vague, and has the potential to not really address the problem. Our class spends a significant amount of time very seriously examining the way that institutional oppression can manifest itself in places like schools. When the district uses the term “cultural competency” this is what they are trying to get at. However, cultural competency is a vague term which allows the district to evade vital work amidst a discourse of multiculturalism. While in some situations the district might not like to use these terms, we feel a more appropriate description of an effective “cultural competency” program is anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-homophobia, and an overall anti-oppression work. The term “cultural competence,” if not defined, can be easily misinterpreted as though teachers can gain a minimum absolute knowledge about a homogeneous culture. While there are important trends to acknowledge amongst student demographics, it is equally important to acknowledge that these trends can be used for inaccurate stereotyping. Teachers and staff would benefit from on-going dialogue about privilege and how they relate to students across differences in identity. In sum, the details of how “cultural competence” can be ensured require much elaboration. Training teachers and staff to not necessarily see anti-racism as something scary and intimidating, but as an opportunity to actively consider the politics of a classroom is the kind of “cultural competency” that will result in minimizing the disproportionate pattern of behavior referrals and ultimately referrals to the juvenile court system. In a diverse teaching environment teachers have to have an understanding of the ways in which institutional racism, sexism, and heteronormativity work within structures like school, even if they don’t realize it or intend it. This is especially important in a school with a majority of white teachers that does not match up to the diverse student population. Whatever language used on the face of it, a truly effective “cultural competency” program must address institutional and unintentional racism, sexism, and heteronormativity in order for students to be treated as fairly as possible in a system that may not have always worked well for them in the past.
Another aspect of the ethnography was to do a textual analysis of official district policy and compare it to quantitative findings as well as staff interviews. The ethnography finds that the policies in place are mostly adequate, but that it is a misunderstanding or non adherence to these policies that leads to problems (such as inconsistent disciplinary standards). However, we would like to ask whether it is indeed the lack of understanding or if it is, in fact, the policies themselves that lack an understanding of the classroom. In the vein of community support, we have found that individual attention is more effective than the strict policy and warehousing that is reminiscent of our prison system. Why mirror this system in a place that is supposed to be about teaching and learning and relationships? A more realistic and effective policy would have to begin at the federal and state level with a de-emphasis on standardized testing that forces teachers and staff to adopt unforgiving policies so as to maintain the order necessary to teach to such a rigid measuring stick. Now, however, on the district level every child needs to be given their own ruler with which to be measured. Individualized attention to behavioral issues may take more time and resources, but it is a change in policy that is absolutely necessary to truly change the function of punishment from cold prison-like discipline to a caring and transformative process.
